Charlie Kirk, one of the most prominent conservative voices in America, was assassinated on September 10 while delivering a speech to students.
He was a husband, a young father, and the founder of the largest conservative student organization in the nation.
His murder should have been met with silence, mourning, or at the very least human decency. Instead, it was met with cruelty.
Only days after Kirk’s assassination, Jasmine Frye—a staffer tied to Virginia’s Democrat gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger—took to social media to celebrate his death.
“F around and find out,” she wrote. “His entire brand was hate and violence. You attract what you preach.”
These are not the words of an anonymous agitator. Frye works inside Virginia politics, a state with national attention and one of the most competitive races in the country.
Spanberger is campaigning to govern more than 8.5 million people.
Yet her campaign has not condemned Frye’s remarks. Not a single word of disavowal. And in a moment like this, silence is not neutrality—it is complicity.
The claim that Kirk somehow “attracted” violence is false.
He was targeted for doing what he had done thousands of times before: speaking to young people on a college campus.
He was killed because he gave students an alternative to progressive ideology.
His so-called “brand,” as Frye dismissively labeled it, was built on empowering students, defending constitutional freedoms, and challenging institutional leftism. To suggest that such work makes someone deserving of assassination is to endorse political violence.
This is not an isolated case. We are watching a pattern develop where left-wing activists and even political staffers openly justify violence if the victims are conservative.
Hellbound and Down 